Is believing/faith a work ?

marke

Well-known member
Believing is a work because its something we do Rom 10:9

9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Believe here is in the active voice which:

Represents the subject as the doer or performer of the action. e.g., in the sentence, "Jesus returned to Capernaum" Jesus performs the action.

Again a work by definition, the greek word ergon:

  1. any product whatever, any thing accomplished by hand, art, industry, or mind
  2. an act, deed, thing done: the idea of working is emphasised in opp. to that which is less than work

Also To believe is a work of mental ability of the mind and ; the understanding, and the will, conscience and affections. Paul wrote of receiving the Love of the Truth 2 Thess 2:10

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

So If I say Im saved because I believed, God saved me because I performed that action, thats Salvation by my works, even if we count it as a work of righteousness, what does Titus 3:5 say

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Of course believing is not a work. All a sinner must do to be saved is to believe on Jesus.

  1. Acts 16:31
    And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
  2. Romans 10:9
    That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
If the writer of the OP is correct, and God did force me to be obedient to Him, ie. "believe", I am glad.
That's the right attitude.
I hope He will force all the people I pray for everyday to be converted, to believe, too.
Ditto.
The idea of Him making me to believe, but not the loved ones in my life, seems rather cruel to me.
Wrong attitude. When you start judging God, that's when you need to tell yourself, "Remember His grace toward me. 'There but for the grace of God go I.'" When I feel like judging, that's when I need to remember the grace that is being shown to me. Do you really understand the forgiveness you've received? If your knee-jerk reaction is to judge God then you need knee surgery; fix that knee.
The writer of the OP is wrong of course, as I had to choose the path I walk: not God.
False dichotomy.
I also have to choose every day to stay on this path.
False humility.
Or does God force me to do that too?
Well, there is that Bible passage that does seem to indicate, that your plans were made by God, and not by you, actually. So "force," no. But nobody really ever said force to begin with, except you. I thought you meant it figuratively since otherwise it's a straw man argument fallacy (wrong). I give people the benefit of the doubt.
I wonder why the devil doesn't quit trying to get me to walk in the darkness, on the wide path?
Until you're purified or purged of every hint of objective sin, "let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." I'm most concerned about what King David called "secret faults" in Psalm 19. Sins I don't know about. Those sins keep me up at night. Give me nightmares.

But as far as I know, I'm just an average in-full-communion Catholic. You should be too, just go to confession, you can literally pick any confession at any parish, in case you don't know. That's Canon Law, you have the right as a Catholic to go to any confession or Mass you want to.
 

beloved57

Well-known member
Yourpoint

You definitely are saying that believing/faith is a gift.

Which is correct; is believing/faith a 'work', or is believing/faith a 'gift'?

Shows you aren't paying attention; I have explained that already.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Yourpoint

Shows you aren't paying attention; I have explained that already.

No, you haven't.

Also, how many times does this make it, I've told you to use the "+Quote" button to reply to posts. Please do so.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Not according to @beloved57. Those that were elected to be saved from the foundation of the world didn't need it.
I see your point.
With his/her mind-set, I wonder why we are told to bring the gospel of redemption to every one on earth?
It is written..."And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt 28:18-20)
What is the point of teaching anything?
Live and let live, as the future is all preset anyway.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
That's the right attitude.
But the OP is wrong.
God didn't force me to repent of sin and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of past sins.
He doesn't force me to resist temptations and love my neighbor as I love myself.
I will be judged on the last day for my actions, but if God "made me do it", good or bad, why am I judged at all?
It is a ludicrous POV that voids men for their own reponsibilities.
Ditto.
Wrong attitude. When you start judging God, that's when you need to tell yourself, "Remember His grace toward me. 'There but for the grace of God go I.'" When I feel like judging, that's when I need to remember the grace that is being shown to me. Do you really understand the forgiveness you've received? If your knee-jerk reaction is to judge God then you need knee surgery; fix that knee.
I am not judging God, as God cannot be judged.
God gave all men an equal chance to love and obey Him.
We will all be judged on our decisions.
If God chooses some to disobey Him, why will they be tossed into the lake of fire?
Their sins were NOT their fault.
False dichotomy.
Not at all.
What other options are available?
"God made me do it", or "I chose to do it" are the only options of this thread.
False humility.
It takes real humility to submit to God.
False bravado prevents it.
Well, there is that Bible passage that does seem to indicate, that your plans were made by God, and not by you, actually. So "force," no. But nobody really ever said force to begin with, except you. I thought you meant it figuratively since otherwise it's a straw man argument fallacy (wrong). I give people the benefit of the doubt.
Did Hitler kill 6 million people on his own?
Or did God make/force/cause him do it?
Men have choices to make with a day of judgement in mind.
Until you're purified or purged of every hint of objective sin, "let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."
Was not the blood of Jesus Christ sufficient for that?
It was.
I'm most concerned about what King David called "secret faults" in Psalm 19. Sins I don't know about. Those sins keep me up at night. Give me nightmares.
Some things of the OT don't apply to men of the NT.
Every sin is on purpose, according to James in James 1:14-15.
But as far as I know, I'm just an average in-full-communion Catholic. You should be too, just go to confession, you can literally pick any confession at any parish, in case you don't know. That's Canon Law, you have the right as a Catholic to go to any confession or Mass you want go.
I gave up the false, powerless, religions many years ago.
I was sick of the accommodations for ongoing wickedness.
I chose to submit to God, instead of men.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
But the OP is wrong.
God didn't force me to repent of sin and get baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of past sins.
He doesn't force me to resist temptations and love my neighbor as I love myself.
I will be judged on the last day for my actions, but if God "made me do it", good or bad, why am I judged at all?
It is a ludicrous POV that voids men for their own reponsibilities.
Like I said, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't committing a straw man fallacy.

But you were!
Ditto.

I am not judging God, as God cannot be judged.
I know that!
God gave all men an equal chance to love and obey Him.
We will all be judged on our decisions.
If God chooses some to disobey Him, why will they be tossed into the lake of fire?
Their sins were NOT their fault.
False! All Calvinists instead admit that left to our own devices not a single one of us would be sinless! You say that therefore our sins wouldn't be our fault? False!
Not at all.
What other options are available?
Let me see.
"God made me do it", or "I chose to do it" are the only options of this thread.
Could be both. False dichotomy.
It takes real humility to submit to God.
False bravado prevents it.

Did Hitler kill 6 million people on his own?
Or did God make/force/cause him do it?
Did God let it happen? Yes or no. (This is called theodicy.)
Men have choices to make with a day of judgement in mind.

Was not the blood of Jesus Christ sufficient for that?
It was.
Very precious few of us are ever purified in this life, Hoping, and if you believe you're one of those few: I'm unconvinced lol.
Some things of the OT don't apply to men of the NT.
Every sin is on purpose, according to James in James 1:14-15.
King David and James can be and are both right.
I gave up the false, powerless, religions many years ago.
Nobody's asking you to participate with any of those.
I was sick of the accommodations for ongoing wickedness.
I chose to submit to God, instead of men.
Right, that's what I do, I'm Catholic.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
All Calvinists instead admit that left to our own devices not a single one of us would be sinless! You say that therefore our sins wouldn't be our fault? False!

Please explain for us, in as much or as little detail as you like, how someone who is incapable of doing anything other than what God has predetermined for them to do, doing something God predetermined that they do, means they are therefore responsible for their actions?

"God made me do it," and "I chose to do it," are mutually exclusive to each other. They CANNOT both be true, because the latter implies there is a choice, while the former implies there is no choice.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Please explain for us, in as much or as little detail as you like, how someone who is incapable
Incapable is your word. It's not about capability but whether or not it will ever happen, and it will never happen. Is an animal categorically incapable of driving a car or learning words? No, but will the animal ever actually do those things? Not in 13.8 billion years, not unless they get help. It's not because they're physically incapable, it's that their nature is never going to lead them to learn to do those things, never, not even by accident.

In the same way no man would ever, not even by accident, be sinless if it weren't for God helping him. Not because he's incapable of it, but because his nature would never lead him to be sinless, he is the natural man. The natural man needs to be saved from himself, and left to his own devices, he will absolutely never choose sinlessness.
of doing anything other than what God has predetermined for them to do, doing something God predetermined that they do, means they are therefore responsible for their actions?
God let Hitler murder millions of people, is Hitler now not responsible? Is God responsible?
"God made me do it," and "I chose to do it," are mutually exclusive to each other. They CANNOT both be true, because the latter implies there is a choice, while the former implies there is no choice.
Did you ever see the movie "The Game?" The plot blurs the line between free choice and predetermination.

 
Im not you. I have set forth what I believe to be the truth, all you have to do is read it.
At least you have acknowledged that you believe contradictory statements.
It's commendable that you are willing to show Calvinism for what it actually is; you might get credit for that at the judgement.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Incapable is your word.

No, that's an accurate description of what calvinists believe.

It's not about capability but whether or not it will ever happen,

According to Calvinism, it will never happen that someone does something OTHER than what God has predetermined they will do.

and it will never happen.

Then there is no possible alternative.

Is an animal categorically incapable of driving a car or learning words? No, but will the animal ever actually do those things? Not in 13.8 billion years, not unless they get help. It's not because they're physically incapable, it's that their nature is never going to lead them to learn to do those things, never, not even by accident.

This is the sort of doublespeak that Compatibilist Calvinists use to try to avoid the problem, except that it doesn't even come close to addressing the problem.

Again, according to Calvinsim, NOTHING happens that is outside of God's decree. That includes EVERY SINGLE MINUTE action. In fact, a more apt description would be "no atom out of place."

In the same way no man would ever, not even by accident, be sinless if it weren't for God helping him.

Don't get off topic. We're talking about what you said in post #547 to Hoping, which was that "'God made me do it' and 'I chose to do it'" are not contradictory.

Not because he's incapable of it, but because his nature would never lead him to be sinless, he is the natural man.

According to Calvinism, God is the one who programmed the natural man either to eventually be reconciled to Him, or to never be reconciled to Him.

"God made me do it," not "I chose to do it."

Or, to make it easier for you to understand, "God gave me a nature which will never lead me to accepting Him," versus "God gave me a nature that, when presented with the choice between life and death, and told to choose life, that I may live, I choose life, not because I am incapable of choosing life, but because I AM capable of choosing life when presented with it, but choose the alternative.

With the former, there is no choice, no possibility of being saved, because God has already determined that He will not save the person.

With the latter, the choices are presented, and the sinner chooses death over life.

They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

The natural man needs to be saved from himself,

According to Calvinism, the natural man will not be saved from himself. It's set in stone, a done deal. God will never save them. There is no hope for him.

Open Theists like myself, however, show that this is not the case, because God constantly makes it clear that He wants men to choose Him, which they cannot do if they don't have the choice to do so.

and left to his own devices, he will absolutely never choose sinlessness.

Again, there is no choice, according to calvinism.

Calvinism's god has already arbitrarily determined who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, quite literally, "God made me do it," as out of everything they will do, which is predetermined by God, NEVER will they choose God, even if the gospel is presented to them.

God let Hitler murder millions of people, is Hitler now not responsible? Is God responsible?

You don't seem to understand Calvinism.

Calvinism is not "God allowed..." anything.

Calvinism is "God predetermined..." EVERYTHING.

EVERY SINGLE WICKED THING that Hitler ever did, God preordained that he would do it. Every Jew that was killed, every command he gave to his armies, all of it, even the number of hairs on his head and how long his right pinky toenail was when he died and the exact position his gun was in when he committed suicide, ALL OF IT, was commanded by God to happen.

If Calvinism is true, then Hitler is NOT accountable for his actions. because it was all commanded by God.

But HItler IS accountable, and will face or has already faced God, to give an account of his actions while on Earth, and unless he repented before God before his death, He will be held responsible for the millions of Jews he had slaughtered, which means one of two things: Either God is unjust, or Calvinism is false.

Did you ever see the movie "The Game?" The plot blurs the line between free choice and predetermination.


If you get your theology from fiction, it's no wonder you're so confused.
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Like I said, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't committing a straw man fallacy.
But you were!
Point out the falsity.
I know that!
False! All Calvinists instead admit that left to our own devices not a single one of us would be sinless! You say that therefore our sins wouldn't be our fault? False!
At least they admit some can be sinless, by what ever means.
Let me see.
Could be both. False dichotomy.
If both, where is the dichotomy?
Did God let it happen? Yes or no. (This is called theodicy.)
Yes, as He has allowed all the other works of Adams seeds to happen.
Very precious few of us are ever purified in this life, Hoping, and if you believe you're one of those few: I'm unconvinced lol.
You can't be convinced, or you would already be one of us.
King David and James can be and are both right.
Not in this case.
Both spoke from the covenant they were under.
Different covenants.
Nobody's asking you to participate with any of those.
You might be surprised at how wrong you are.
Right, that's what I do, I'm Catholic.
Why would anybody who submits to God need to go to confession?
 

Hoping

Well-known member
Im not you. I have set forth what I believe to be the truth, all you have to do is read it.
If it was the truth Jesus spoke of in John 8:32-34 it would have freed you from committing sin.
Has it?
Or is it some other conflicting "truth" that cannot free you from service to sin?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
No, that's an accurate description of what calvinists believe.
In your opinion only: you'll never be able to cite a Calvinist agreeing with you, which makes this characterization of yours partisan.
According to Calvinism, it will never happen that someone does something OTHER than what God has predetermined they will do.
Logically prior to that, Calvinism claims that it will never happen. And why it will never happen is the next logical sequence: because we are the natural man, who by nature will never pursue, consider, choose, prefer sinlessness.

It is only after these claims, that Calvinism wades into the reason why some people turn to God. Left to their own devices no natural man will ever choose God (QED).
Then there is no possible alternative.
Sure there is! The monkey could get some help learning some words or driving a car! That is of course a possible alternative. Just because the monkey, if left alone, will NEVER learn language or how to drive, does not mean there's "no possible alternative"!
This is the sort of doublespeak that Compatibilist Calvinists use to try to avoid the problem, except that it doesn't even come close to addressing the problem.

Again, according to Calvinsim, NOTHING happens that is outside of God's decree. That includes EVERY SINGLE MINUTE action. In fact, a more apt description would be "no atom out of place."
So what?
Don't get off topic.
I'm not off topic.
We're talking about what you said in post #547 to Hoping
Post 547 is your post.
, which was that "'God made me do it' and 'I chose to do it'" are not contradictory.



According to Calvinism, God is the one who programmed the natural man either to eventually be reconciled to Him, or to never be reconciled to Him.
The natural man is the consequence of the Fall in Eden. God did not "program" the natural man. Adam was not the natural man, Adam was "very good."
"God made me do it," not "I chose to do it."

Or, to make it easier for you to understand, "God gave me a nature
He didn't give you that nature.
which will never lead me to accepting Him," versus "God gave me a nature that, when presented with the choice between life and death, and told to choose life, that I may live, I choose life, not because I am incapable of choosing life, but because I AM capable of choosing life when presented with it, but choose the alternative.

With the former, there is no choice, no possibility of being saved
Unless and only unless God intervenes. This is Calvinism.
, because God has already determined that He will not save the person.
No, because our nature is such that if He doesn't intervene and the key here is that He must intervene effectively.
With the latter, the choices are presented, and the sinner chooses death over life.
In the same way that the dog chooses to not learn words. It's not like he knows completely what is being offered to him but chooses intellectually to remain illiterate. He's a dog. Without God's help he's just never going to learn a single word, never.
They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.



According to Calvinism, the natural man will not be saved from himself. It's set in stone, a done deal. God will never save them. There is no hope for him.

Open Theists like myself, however, show that this is not the case, because God constantly makes it clear that He wants men to choose Him, which they cannot do if they don't have the choice to do so.
Those are not mutually exclusive. Just because the dog isn't going to learn a word unless he is changed on the inside somehow, doesn't mean there's no reason for God to not constantly remind all dogs, that they really should devote themselves to learning to use words and language, for their own good.
Again, there is no choice, according to calvinism.
Nope. There is a choice. But the natural man will never freely make the choice for God.
Calvinism's god has already arbitrarily determined who will go to heaven, and who will go to hell, quite literally, "God made me do it," as out of everything they will do, which is predetermined by God, NEVER will they choose God, even if the gospel is presented to them.
It's in the nature of the natural man, a Biblical term. It has nothing to do with predetermination, that the natural man won't freely and of his own accord choose sinlessness.
You don't seem to understand Calvinism.
That's because you don't understand it.
Calvinism is not "God allowed..." anything.
False! God has a permissive will. This is not Him actively choosing, it is Him permitting. Permitting and allowing are synonyms.
Calvinism is "God predetermined..." EVERYTHING.

EVERY SINGLE WICKED THING that Hitler ever did, God preordained that he would do it.
You have the same problem with Hitler as the Calvinists do. You might claim they're worse because for them God decreed Hitler and the Holocaust, but what about you? Why didn't God stop Hitler and the Holocaust, once He became aware it was happening? Did He not know what was happening? Or was He powerless? Is there some other option? besides Him not knowing, or being powerless?
Every Jew that was killed, every command he gave to his armies, all of it, even the number of hairs on his head and how long his right pinky toenail was when he died and the exact position his gun was in when he committed suicide, ALL OF IT, was commanded by God to happen.

If Calvinism is true, then Hitler is NOT accountable for his actions. because it was all commanded by God.
Permitted. Which is exactly your Open View position, and you have the same theodicy problem: Why did not God stop the Holocaust?
But HItler IS accountable, and will face or has already faced God, to give an account of his actions while on Earth, and unless he repented before God before his death, He will be held responsible for the millions of Jews he had slaughtered, which means one of two things: Either God is unjust, or Calvinism is false.
Only unrepentant violent criminals argue like this, like somehow it was all because my mother didn't love me, and so what I did I'm not responsible for.

Calvinism is just not that silly. It's a false characterization of Calvinism. It's a straw man fallacy argument.

God is very just in permitting the natural man to suffer the penalties for his free actions.
If you get your theology from fiction, it's no wonder you're so confused.
It's about logic. rn you can't conceive of a situation where one party is planning out what another party will do, but while the other party is always acting with complete freedom. To you these are mutually exclusive, but the movie depicts that it is possible for them both to be true simultaneously.

So it bears on theology, but it's about logic.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
... Remember, the sower is God, spreading his message, the seeds.


This parable makes NO SENSE AT ALL under Calvinism, but makes perfect sense if men are able to respond, positively or negatively, to the gospel. Yes, faith and repentance are the fruit of the gospel, the same way that the plant that grows on fertile soil is the fruit of the sower, sowing his seeds.
It makes sense in this regard: The Gospel is sown everywhere like seed. But the condition of the soil is not up to the soil, but up to God. At any rate, it's out of the hands of the one sowing the Good News. The sower should just sow, and not worry about the why's and the how's. I think that's the point of the parable.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Point out the falsity.

At least they admit some can be sinless, by what ever means.

If both, where is the dichotomy?

Yes, as He has allowed all the other works of Adams seeds to happen.

You can't be convinced, or you would already be one of us.

Not in this case.
Both spoke from the covenant they were under.
Different covenants.

You might be surprised at how wrong you are.

Why would anybody who submits to God need to go to confession?
I haven't been in years; what do you mean?
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
In your opinion only: you'll never be able to cite a Calvinist agreeing with you, which makes this characterization of yours partisan.

How about John Calvin himself?

“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)

Logically prior to that, Calvinism claims that it will never happen. And why it will never happen is the next logical sequence: because we are the natural man, who by nature will never pursue, consider, choose, prefer sinlessness.

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christia/n Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

It is only after these claims, that Calvinism wades into the reason why some people turn to God. Left to their own devices no natural man will ever choose God (QED).

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

Sure there is! The monkey could get some help learning some words or driving a car! That is of course a possible alternative. Just because the monkey, if left alone, will NEVER learn language or how to drive, does not mean there's "no possible alternative"!

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8)


SO WHAT?! It means that there are NO ALTERNATIVES! It PRECLUDES the very notion of "CHOICE"!

I'm not off topic.

The portion I was responding to was a tangent.

Post 547 is your post.

Apologies, it's a typo. I meant #647.

The natural man is the consequence of the Fall in Eden. God did not "program" the natural man. Adam was not the natural man, Adam was "very good."

NOT according to Calvinism.

"At present it is necessary only to remember, that man, at his first creation, was very different from all his posterity; who, deriving their origin from him after he was corrupted, received a hereditary taint. At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose the good. If any one objects that it was placed, as it were, in a slippery position, because its power was weak, I answer, that the degree conferred was sufficient to take away every excuse. For surely the Deity could not be tied down to this condition,—to make man such, that he either could not or would not sin. Such a nature might have been more excellent; but to expostulate with God as if he had been bound to confer this nature on man, is more than unjust, seeing he had full right to determine how much or how little He would give. Why He did not sustain him by the virtue of perseverance is hidden in his counsel; it is ours to keep within the bounds of soberness. Man had received the power, if he had the will, but he had not the will which would have given the power; for this will would have been followed by perseverance. Still, after he had received so much, there is no excuse for his having spontaneously brought death upon himself. No necessity was laid upon God to give him more than that intermediate and even transient will, that out of man’s fall he might extract materials for his own glory." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 15, Paragraph 8)

By the way, in case it wasn't extremely obvious, I am most definitely not a Calvinist.

So it should be obvious also that when I said what I said above, it was not talking about myself personally.

He didn't give you that nature.

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

Unless and only unless God intervenes. This is Calvinism.

God only intervenes for those whom He has elected, according to Calvinism.

No, because our nature is such that if He doesn't intervene and the key here is that He must intervene effectively.

In the same way that the dog chooses to not learn words. It's not like he knows completely what is being offered to him but chooses intellectually to remain illiterate. He's a dog. Without God's help he's just never going to learn a single word, never.

Those are not mutually exclusive. Just because the dog isn't going to learn a word unless he is changed on the inside somehow, doesn't mean there's no reason for God to not constantly remind all dogs, that they really should devote themselves to learning to use words and language, for their own good.

"As the human mind is unable, from dullness, to pursue the right path of investigation, and, after various wanderings, stumbling every now and then like one groping in darkness, at length gets completely bewildered, so its whole procedure proves how unfit it is to search the truth and find it."(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 15)

Nope. There is a choice. But the natural man will never freely make the choice for God.

"...free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 8) Emphasis added

It's in the nature of the natural man, a Biblical term. It has nothing to do with predetermination, that the natural man won't freely and of his own accord choose sinlessness.

"...our freedom is not to the extent of leaving us equally inclined to good and evil in act or in thought, but only to the extent of freeing us from compulsion. This liberty is compatible with our being depraved, the servants of sin, able to do nothing but sin.In this way, then, man is said to have free will, not because he has a free choice of good and evil, but because he acts voluntarily, and not by compulsion. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 2, Chapter 2, Paragraph 8 & 9) Emphasis added

That's because you don't understand it.

Just because you don't believe everything calvinism teaches doesn't mean that I don't understand Calvinism, or that what I'm telling you Calvinism teaches isn't actually Calvinism. I understand it quite well. You don't, or at the very least, you don't hold to everything Calvin teaches.

False! God has a permissive will. This is not Him actively choosing, it is Him permitting.

Not according to Calvinism.

“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)

“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)

“We hold that God is the disposer and ruler of all things, –that from the remotest eternity, according to his own wisdom, He decreed what he was to do, and now by his power executes what he decreed. Hence we maintain, that by His providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 16, Paragraph 8) Emphasis added

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

Permitting and allowing are synonyms.

Calvinism teaches that God commands, decrees, not permits.

You have the same problem with Hitler as the Calvinists do.

This is called a Tu Quoque fallacy.

It's also false.

You might claim they're worse because for them God decreed Hitler and the Holocaust, but what about you? Why didn't God stop Hitler and the Holocaust, once He became aware it was happening? Did He not know what was happening? Or was He powerless? Is there some other option? besides Him not knowing, or being powerless?

This isn't the same problem the Calvinists have.

It's a similar problem, but the difference is that God is not inherently unjust for decreeing the murder of millions.

Permitted. Which is exactly your Open View position, and you have the same theodicy problem: Why did not God stop the Holocaust?

Not stopping the Holocaust is not the same as decreeing the Holocaust.

If you would like to start a new thread on "Why did God not stop the Holocaust if He did not decree it to happen?" then you need to start a new thread, and I will be more than happy to address it there.

Only unrepentant violent criminals argue like this, like somehow it was all because my mother didn't love me, and so what I did I'm not responsible for.

Yes, that is one effect of Calvinism. There are countless Christians in prison who wonder why things happen to them, and it's because they were taught that God has a specific plan for their lives, and so they commit crimes, and then wonder why they're in prison, not realizing that the reason they're in prison is because they were not doing God's will but their own (which is what Open Theism teaches, by the way, not Calvinism). But according to Calvinism, they're in there because God commanded that they do the things they did, and that the police officers would arrests them, and that they would be assigned to that specific cell, and that they would be forced to live there for however long.

Calvinism is just not that silly. It's a false characterization of Calvinism. It's a straw man fallacy argument.

I think the quotes I provided above directly from Calvin himself are enough to show that this is exactly what he taught.

God is very just in permitting the natural man to suffer the penalties for his free actions.

But that's not Calvinism, as per above.

It's about logic. rn you can't conceive of a situation where one party is planning out what another party will do, but while the other party is always acting with complete freedom. To you these are mutually exclusive, but the movie depicts that it is possible for them both to be true simultaneously.

In other words, it's trying to say that A = !A. It's literally trying to get you to believe that two things that are contradictory are both true in the same way and at the same time, which means that the movie is wrong.

So it bears on theology, but it's about logic.

If it's a contradiction, then it cannot be true.

A = A is true. (Law of Identity)
A = !A is false. (Law of Non-Contradiction)
A OR !A (Law of Excluded Middle)

It (the movie) violates the very laws of logic it's trying to use.

Your beliefs are irrational, trying to say that which is contradictory is true.

It makes sense in this regard: The Gospel is sown everywhere like seed. But the condition of the soil is not up to the soil, but up to God. At any rate, it's out of the hands of the one sowing the Good News. The sower should just sow, and not worry about the why's and the how's. I think that's the point of the parable.

What you describe is not what Calvinism teaches.

P.S. By the way, Thank you @Clete for your posts which contain the above quotes from Calvin's Institutes!
 
Top